Chapter XIX: Part 19

“Sir Christopher Garneys, knt., whom I suppose to be the person
who was the object of Skelton’s satire, was the second son of
Edmund Garneys, esq. of Beccles, who was the second son of
Peter Garneys, esq. of Beccles, whose eldest son, Thomas, was
of Kenton. He, ‘Sir Christopher,’ was janitor of Caleys, and
often employed in the wars temp. H. viii....

In a window of the chapel in the north aisle of St. Peter’s
Mancroft Church, Norfolk, was the following inscription:
‘ ... anda ... a ... Dei, pro animabus Thome Elys tercia
vice hujus civitatis Norwici Majoris et Margarete consortis
sue.—Orandumque est pro animabus Edmundi Garnysh armigeri,
et Matilde ejus consortis, filie predictorum Thome Elis et
Margarete, ac pro longevo statu Christopheri Garnysh militis,
dicti serenissimi Principis ville sue Calisie Janitoris.’ See
Blomf. Norf. vol. iv. p. 199. [vol. ii. 628. ed. fol.]

‘A description of the Standards borne in the field by Peers
and Knights in the reign of Hen. Eighth, from a MS. in the
College of Arms marked I. 2. Compiled between the years 1510
and 1525.’—Syr Christoffer Garnys. ‘A on a wreath, Argent
and Gules, an arm erased below the elbow, and erect proper,
holding a falchion Argent, pomel and hilt Or, the blade imbrued
in 3 places Gules. (Imperfect.)—Arms. Argent a chevron Azure
between 3 escallops Sable.’ Excerpta Historica, p. 317.

‘Standards, temp. H. viii. Harl. MS. 4632. Syr Xr’ofer
Garneyshe. Blue. The device, on a wreath Argent and Gules, an
arm erased, grasping a scymitar, Proper.—Motto, ‘Oublere ne
dois.’’ Collect. Topog. vol. iii. p. 64.

‘The names of the Inglishmen which were sent in Ambassade
to the French King, before the Qwenes Landing, and oder
Gentilmen in their Compaigne.’—‘Sir Christopher Garneys’ (inter
al.).—Leland’s Collect, vol. ii. p. 704.

In the Athenæum for July 18, 1840, p. 572, there is a long
letter, dated ‘at Morpeth, the xxviij day of Decembre,’ and
signed ‘C. Garneys,’ whom the editor supposes to have been one
of the medical attendants sent by the King, upon the illness of
Queen Margaret: it was more probably [certainly, see _Account
of Skelton and his Writings_, p. xxxii.] Sir Christ. Garneys,
knt.

Sir Christopher was knighted at Touraine, 25 Dec. 5 H. viii.
1513, and married Jane, daughter of.... She died 27th March,
1552. Her will was dated 27th Aug. 1550, and proved 12th May,
1552; she was buried at Greenwich. Her husband was dead when
she made her will. She names her son Arthur Dymoke, esq.
Bequeaths most of her personal estate for charitable purposes.”

EXAMPLES OF THE METRE CALLED SKELTONICAL.

P. cxxiii.

“_O quam venenosa_ pestis.”

The reviewer in _Gent. Mag._ p. 243, thinks that no line has been omitted here, and would read for the rhyme “pecus.”

POEMS.

P. 106.

“Jone sayne she had eaten a _fyest_.”

“Foist,” says the reviewer in _G. M._ p. 243, “is a toadstool in Suffolk language:” but qy. is that the meaning of “fyest” in our text? see my note.

P. 117.

“your _semely_ snowte doth passe.”

Because the MS., as I have stated, appears at first sight to have “scriuely,” the reviewer in _G. M._ p. 243, says “the proper word is _snively_” and compares an expression in another poem _Against Garnesche_, p. 120, “In the pott your _nose_ dedde _sneuyll_,” and one in _Magnyfy ence_, p. 286, “The snyte _snyueled_ in the _snowte_.” But I still think that “semely” is right: Skelton afterwards (p. 130) tells Garnesche that he has “A _semly nose_ and a stowte;” and the line now in question is immediately followed by

“Howkyd as an hawkys beke, _lyke Syr Topyas_,”

i. e. the Sire Thopas of Chaucer; and the said Sire Thopas (_Cant. Tales_, v. 13659, ed. Tyr.) “had a _semeley nose_.”

P. 133.

“_Hic notat purpuraria arte intextas literas Romanas in
amictibus_ post _ambulonum ante et retro._”

The reviewer in _G. M._ p. 244, takes “post” to be an abridgement of “_positas:_” which is a very probable conjecture.

P. 134.

“Such tunges vnhappy hath made great _diuision_
In realmes, in cities, by suche fals abusion,” &c.

The reviewer in _G. M._ p. 244, says “Should not _diuision_ be _delusion_?” I answer,—certainly not.

P. 139.

“Mary _the_ mother.”

I have queried “_thy_ mother”? to which the reviewer in _G. M._ p. 244 (rightly, I believe) objects—“the mother, mater, being an _epitheton commune_, an usual predicate of the Virgin.”

P. 163.

“_Hos rapiet numeros non homo, sed_ mala bos.
_Ex parte rem chartæ adverte aperte, pone Musam Arethusam_ hanc.”

The reviewer in _G. M._ p. 244, would read

“_Hos rapiet numeros, non homo sed_ mulus aut bos,”

comparing (p. 170) “_Asinus_, mulus velut, et bos.” But why alter what Skelton intended for a pentameter? In what follows, the reviewer says that “‘hanc’ should be placed in hooks [hanc], as we think it is only a misprint for ‘aut’.” Would not “aut” stand oddly at the end of a sentence?

P. 170.

“_Et_ cines _socios_.”

“Should it not be ‘_cives_’?” says the reviewer in _G. M._ p. 244. No,—as the preceding “_Carpens vitales auras_” shews.

P. 218.

“_Qui_ caterisatis _categorias cacodæmoniorum_.”

“Mr. Dyce,” says the reviewer in _G. M._ p. 244, “conjectures _catarrhizatis_, which we do not exactly understand. We should read ‘cæteris datis;’” and he compares “enduced a secte” at p. 216, and two other similar passages. I still think that “caterisatis” is probably the old spelling of “_catarrhizatis_.”

P. 259. “_Hic ingrediatur_ FOLY, _quatiendo_ crema _et faciendo multum, feriendo tabulas et similia_.”

The reviewer in _G. M._ p. 245, supposes that “crema” is the Greek word χρημα Latinised, and that it here means “his thing or _bauble_.” I greatly doubt it.

P. 263.

“Howe rode he by you? howe put he to _you_?”

As a rhyme is wanting to “vyser” and “dyser,” I conjectured “_you_ there.”—“We,” says the reviewer in _G. M._ p. 245, “would rather break the line into two short verses,—

‘How rode he by you?
Howe put he to you?’

as v. 1132, with the same cadence and accent,

‘_Fan._ What callest thou thy dogge?

_Fol._ Tusshe, his name is Gryme?’”

But the reviewer ought to have seen that the _two SPEECHES_ last cited make up _one line_.

P. 278.

“Call for a _candell_ and cast vp your gorge.”

The reviewer in _G. M._ p. 245, observes, “Mr. Dyce proposes _caudell_; but is there any authority for _caudell_ as an emetic? We think not, and that the text is right.” I now think so too.

P. 306.

“_Sad Cyr._ Then ye repent you of foly in tymes past?

_Magn._ Sothely, to repent me I haue grete cause:
Howe be it from you I receyued a letter,
Whiche conteyned in it a specyall clause,” &c.

The reviewer in _G. M._ p. 245, to restore the rhyme, would read—

“_Sad Cyr._ Then _of foly in tymes past ye repent_?

_Magn._ Sothely, to repent me I haue grete cause:
Howe be it from you I receyued a letter _sent_,
Whiche conteyned in it a specyall clause,” &c.

Against which I have nothing to object except the violence of the alteration.

P. 357.

“And Saynt Mary Spyttell,
They set not by vs a _whystell_.”

“Perhaps ‘whyttle,’” says the reviewer in _G. M._ p. 245.—I had originally proposed the latter reading, but afterwards rejected it, having found in Lydgate (see my note on the passage, vol. ii. 297),

“For he _set not by_ his wrethe _a whistel_.”

P. 360. “_Colinus Cloutus, quanquam mea carmina multis,_” &c.

The reviewer in _G. M._ p. 246, would cure this corrupted passage as follows;

“_Colinus Cloutus, quanquam mea carmina multis_
_Sordescunt stultis_; _sed_ paucis _sunt_ data _cultis_,
Paucis ante alios _divino flamine flatis_.”

VOL. II.

POEMS.

P. 12. “_In ista cantilena ore stilla plena abjectis frangibulis et aperit._”

The reviewer in _G. M._ p. 246, would read “_Ista cantilena, in ore_ est illa _plena_,” &c.

P. 18.

“_Psittacus_ hi _notus seu Persius est puto notus,_
_Nec reor est nec erit licet est erit_,”

is thus corrected by the reviewer in _G. M._ p. 246,—

“_Psittacus hic notus seu Persius est puto notus_,
_Nec reor est, nec erit_, nec _licet_ est, nec _erit_.”

P. 21.

“_Patet per versus_, quod _ex vi bolte harvi_.”

The reviewer in _G. M._ p. 246, at least ingeniously conjectures,—

“_Patet per versus_ quos excogitavit.”

P. 29.

“_Iack Trauell_ and Cole Crafter.”

Among payments made in the year 1428 (in the reign of Hen. vi.), _Jack Travel_ occurs as the name of a real person; “Et a _Iakke Travaill_ et ses compaignons, feisans diverses Jeues et Enterludes, dedeins le Feste de Noell, devant nostre dit Sire le Roi,” &c. Rymer’s _Fœd._ T. iv. P. iv. p. 133.

P. 86.

“_Emportured with corage,_
_A louers pylgrimage._”

“We interpret,” says the reviewer in _G. M._ p. 246, “the former line as—drawn or portrayed with force, what the French call _animer les tableaux_ or _force de couleurs_; and we think a line after this must have dropped out, like the following;

‘To whom made Numa sage
_A louers pylgrimage_.’”

NOTES.

P. 206. “‘A _chase_ at tennis is that spot where a ball falls, beyond which the adversary must strike his ball to gain a point or chace. At long tennis, it is the spot where the ball leaves off rolling.’ Douce’s _Illust. of Shakespeare_, i. 485.”

In “Additional Notes and Corrections” to his ed. of _Shakespeare_ (vol. i. cclxxxvii.) Mr. Collier observes: “Douce in his ‘Illustrations,’ from not understanding the game of tennis, is mistaken in his definition of a ‘chase:’ a ‘chase’ is not ‘the spot where a ball falls,’ but the duration of a contest in which the players _hunt_ or ‘chase’ the ball, bandying it from one to the other. For the same reason, probably, the Rev. A. Dyce in his Skelton’s Works, vol. ii. p. 206, commits a similar error, and we think misunderstands the passage he quotes from the ‘Merry Jests of the Widow Edith.’ To ‘mark a chase,’ the expression there employed, is to have a chase scored or marked in favour of the successful player; and such is the metaphorical meaning, as applied to the widow, who scored her own chases as she walked along.”

Now, from Douce’s intimate acquaintance with the technicalities of games, I cannot but think that he must have had some authority for his explanation of ‘chase’—(I speak of it, without reference to Shakespeare’s _Henry V._): and that the word _chase_ was not always used by early writers in the sense to which Mr. Collier would limit it—“the duration of a contest in which the players hunt or ‘chase’ the ball, bandying it from one to the other,”—might be shewn by other passages besides the following;

“_Ric._ Reueng’d! and why, good childe?
Olde Faukenbridge hath had a worser basting.

_Fa._ I, they haue banded [me] from _chase to chase;_
I haue been their tennis ball since I did coort.”

_A pleasant Commodie called Looke about you_, 1600, sig. K 2.

R. Holme gives, among the “terms,” at tennis, “_Chase_, is to miss the second striking of the Ball back;” and, among its “laws,” he informs us, “6. You must observe that there is no changing sides without two _Chases_ or Forty one _Chase_, and then they may change sides, and the other serves upon the Pent-house beyond the Blew, and then the other is bound to play the Ball over the Line, between the _Chase_ and the end Wall; and if the other side misses to return the Ball, he loses 15.” _Acad. of Armory_, 1688, B. iii. p. 265. The passage of Skelton,

“She mutid [i. e. dunged] there _a chase_
Vpon my corporas face,”

taken together with that which I cited from _The Mery Jests of the Widow Edith_, shews that the word was occasionally used as a sort of “mannerly” term when certain uncleanly subjects were in question.